Part-Time Faculty Win Voice at SMU Senate
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 22, 2025--
After years of fighting for better worker representation in university governance, the Saint Mary's University (SMU) Senate have voted to amend their by-laws, allowing for part-time faculty to run for a seat on the Senate. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) applauds this worker-driven victory.
'This is a huge win for academic workers,' said Lauren McKenzie, CUPE 3912 President. CUPE 3912 represents approximately 400 part-time faculty at Saint Mary's University.
'We can finally take part in the decision-making processes that impact our lives and the work we do—as the full-time academic staff we work alongside every day have been doing—and work together to protect workers and protect the standard of postsecondary education that we know SMU students deserve.'
The Senate is a body of elected members responsible for the SMU educational policy, including determining courses of study and creating or discontinuing academic departments.
The change in by-laws also means part-time faculty at SMU are now eligible to nominate and vote for all elected members of the Senate, which they were previously unable to do.
This is an important victory for academic workers at SMU, particularly in the wake of recent cuts to SMU course offerings—which have resulted in half of part-time faculty at SMU losing work or losing their jobs entirely.
Previously, CUPE 3912 members taught a third of SMU courses and workers have been vocal about the impact of these cuts on both their members livelihoods as well as the quality of postsecondary education in Nova Scotia.
'These cuts are primarily impacting the humanities, meaning SMU students are losing opportunities to explore subjects like history, religion, and language and culture,' continued McKenzie. 'SMU students are losing a wealth of knowledge in these areas and the incredible expertise our members bring. It's not just about the course list; it's about the kind of academic institution SMU is—or is at risk of becoming. That's why we fought for a voice at the Senate, and this is what we can do with that voice.'
:so/cope491
View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250522456196/en/
CONTACT: For more information, please contact:Lauren McKenzie
President, CUPE 3912
[email protected] Manek
CUPE Atlantic Communications
[email protected]
KEYWORD: NORTH AMERICA CANADA
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: EDUCATION PUBLIC POLICY/GOVERNMENT LABOR UNIVERSITY
SOURCE: CUPE
Copyright Business Wire 2025.
PUB: 05/22/2025 09:20 AM/DISC: 05/22/2025 09:19 AM
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250522456196/en
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Big grocery wants Ontario to lift ban on 'private label' wine, beer
Premier Doug Ford's next move to reform alcohol retail in Ontario could be allowing supermarket chains to sell their own private-label wine and beer, such as Costco's Kirkland Signature brand. The government recently began consulting with the industry about making further changes to Ontario's rules on booze sales. As part of the consultations, big grocery is lobbying for Ontario to end its ban on supermarkets selling their own-brand alcohol products, CBC News has learned. Current provincial regulations prohibit grocery stores from selling any brands of beer or wine in which they have "a direct or indirect financial interest." Small wineries in the province fear the consequences of lifting that ban. "Allowing private label wine in grocery, big box and convenience stores would be a severe blow to Ontario's wine industry," said Michelle Wasylyshen, president and CEO of Ontario Craft Wineries, which represents more than 100 wine producers. WATCH | How the LCBO makes money for the Ontario government: Wasylyshen says while craft wineries deeply value their working relationship with the grocery stores, Ontario's private-label ban needs to stay in place so that locally-produced wines are not pushed out by the big supermarket chains. "This is a black and white issue for us, backed by data and previous experience. There is no grey zone," she said in an email to CBC News. Canada's other major wine-producing province, British Columbia – where it's a $3.75 billion-a-year industry – also bans supermarkets from selling their own brands. The Retail Council of Canada, which represents all the large supermarket and big-box chains including Costco, Loblaws, Walmart and Sobeys, says its members in Ontario are interested in selling their own brands of alcohol. "Private label increases competition, lowering prices for customers, because brewers and vineyards need to indirectly compete with the lower retail prices of private label brands," said Sebastian Prins, the Retail Council's director of government relations for Ontario, in an email to CBC News. Prins says the province's wine industry would remain protected by provincial regulations requiring supermarkets to allocate certain portions of shelf-space to Ontario-made products. He also says private-label sales could benefit grape growers in Ontario because the retailers would be looking for new sources for their wine. But with cross-border trade tensions remaining high, and the LCBO currently not stocking U.S. products, a spokesperson for Ford says private-label sales are not currently planned as part of the government's modernization of alcohol retailing. "Our priority right now is supporting Ontario growers and supporting Ontario-made products," said Ford's director of media relations, Grace Lee. The push on private-label sales comes less than a year after Ford sped up the timeline for allowing convenience stores to sell beer, wine and ready-to-drink cocktails. That move is costing taxpayers at least $612 million, including $225 million of compensation paid to the mega-breweries that own The Beer Store for the expanded retail competition. In April, Ford announced a shift in pricing rules so that convenience stores now get their products supplied at a 15 per cent discount from the LCBO's retail price, giving them a potentially higher margin on wine and beer than grocery stores, whose discount remains at 10 per cent. The Retail Council and the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers wrote a joint letter to Ford last month asking for a number of changes to the province's booze marketplace, including the ability to sell private-label alcohol. The chain and independent supermarkets also raised concerns about the mandate that all grocery stores selling beer and wine must start accepting returns of empty cans and bottles in 2026, a requirement not imposed on convenience stores.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ottawa considering 'combination of approaches' to 20% military pay hike
OTTAWA — Defence Minister David McGuinty's office says it's considering a 'combination of approaches' to boosting pay for armed service members, including introducing retention bonuses for 'stress trades.' 'This investment represents an almost 20 per cent increase to the overall CAF compensation envelope,' McGuinty's spokesperson Laurent de Casanove said in an email statement to The Canadian Press. 'The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are actively working on how best to implement this investment — looking at options that include a combination of approaches such as retention bonuses for stress trades, increased starting salaries for junior members, and a broad-based salary increase.' While McGuinty's recent public commitment to grant the Canadian Armed Forces a '20 per cent pay increase" won praise within the defence community, it has also led to confusion — and some experts are saying they want to read the fine print. Military pay scales are complicated and are based on rank, profession, deployment and other conditions. There are many ways to roll out a boost in compensation. Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said she thinks this will not amount to an across-the-board pay hike. "What is clear to me from this statement is that they are looking at all the options," she said. 'We're still in that big question about what it looks like because a pay raise versus specialty pay versus an adaptation of the compensation package overall — not in salary — are not the same thing.' She said the way the pay pledge was communicated initially was "risky" since the details were not readily available, and that has led to confusion among military members and expectations of a blanket pay hike. Gary Walbourne, former ombudsman for the Department of National Defence, called McGuinty's promise 'vague at best.' 'There's nothing clear in this message,' he said. 'A 20 per cent increase overall to CAF compensation envelope, what does that mean? Is it coming in benefits? … Is it going be on a cyclical basis? What's the percentage increase? Is it based on seniority, rank, merit?' The former watchdog for military personnel said it sounds like the Liberal government wants to implement a pay boost quickly, but 'the mechanisms that they apply to it is going to complicate it and once the bureaucrats get their hands on it, well, I can see a slowdown coming.' If CAF members don't see a 20 per cent pay bump after the minister's announcement, he said, it will be 'déjà vu all over again' for military personnel who have been let down in the past by lofty promises followed by implementation that "sucks big time." The federal government has multiple policy options for addressing the cost of living for CAF members, such as lowering rent for on- or near-base housing or boosting allowances, such as danger pay. Duval-Lantoine suggested Ottawa should focus on specialty trades that "do not get nearly the attraction that they need to have." The military has long struggled with shortages of professionals who are hard to recruit and retain — people in the technical trades and logistics, pilots, medical specialists and middle management. The Navy has found it hard to attract and keep maritime technicians, while people working in maintenance trades such as plumbers and electricians can be paid better in the private sector. Walbourne suggested Ottawa look at direct pay, focus on the lower ranks and address regional disparities in the cost of living. Andrew Leslie, a retired lieutenant-general and former Liberal MP who has called for higher wages in the armed forces, hailed the minister's pledge as long overdue. 'They need it because the last 10 years, there hasn't been a lot of love shown to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government of Canada,' Leslie said. 'Quite frankly, a 20 per cent pay increase is outstanding and I compliment the leaders who made that decision. I firmly believe they're going to pay a 20 per cent pay increase to everybody in the Canadian Forces." Gaëlle Rivard Piché, head of the Conference of Defence Associations and the CDA Institute, called the promised pay hike a 'great first step' and something that could be achieved 'quite easily' compared to other challenges facing the armed forces. 'It was long overdue," she said. "We know that the Canadian Armed Forces have been dealing with both a recruitment and a retention problem, and an increase in salary will certainly help to make Canadian Armed Forces positions and employment more attractive.' Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed during the recent federal election that he would rebuild and rearm the military and increase military pay. Some of the largest earmarks in his election platform go toward national defence. He recently announced a cash injection of $9 billion into national defence this fiscal year, as Canada looks to finally meet its NATO defence spending commitment. Then-defence minister Bill Blair last year described the state of military recruitment as a 'death spiral' and Canada is still short some 13,000 regular and primary reserve personnel, according to the Department of National Defence. 'There's been generally some delays in terms of receiving basic training, but also trade-related training, which makes people less inclined to finish their training and then become an actual serving member,' said Rivard Piché. Leslie also said housing and base conditions remain abysmal in some areas and need to be quickly addressed. 'Black mould exists in a variety of national defence buildings. There are some bases that don't have drinking water. There's buildings and houses for families that are 60, 70, 80 years old in dire need of repair," he said. "As well, you've got to make sure that you have money for equipment, money for training, money to create the stockpiles of stuff you're going to need should the worst happen — i.e., war.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 21, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
‘Always a peacemaker': How Trump decided to hold off on striking Iran
By most accounts, President Donald Trump's attention for the past week has been consumed by the spiraling crisis playing out between Israel and Iran. In between meetings in Canada on Monday, he peppered aides for constant updates. He has spent more time in the basement Situation Room this week than at any point so far in his new presidency. So it was somewhat jarring Wednesday when the president emerged from the South Portico — not to provide an update on his crisis consultations, but to oversee the installation of two nearly 100-foot flagpoles. 'These are the best poles anywhere in the country, or in the world, actually. They're tapered. They have the nice top,' the president told a clutch of reporters and workmen. 'It's a very exciting project to me.' The break from his Iran meetings lasted about an hour, a moment for the president to literally touch grass on the South Lawn amid the most consequential period of decision-making of his term so far. A day later, the president decided not to decide. He dictated a statement to his press secretary Karoline Leavitt announcing he would hold off ordering a strike on Iran for up to two weeks to see if a diplomatic resolution was possible. The decision was revealed after another meeting in the Situation Room, where the president has spent much of this week reviewing attack plans and quizzing officials about the potential consequences of each. After steadily ratcheting up his martial rhetoric – including issuing an urgent warning to evacuate the 10 million residents of Iran's capital – Trump's deferment provides the president some breathing room as he continues to work through options presented by his military officials over the past several days. It also allows more time for the divergent factions of his own party to make their case directly to the president for and against a strike, as they have been urgently doing since it became clear Trump was seriously considering dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. The president has refused to pick a side in public and spent the last week alternating between militaristic threats issued on social media and private concerns that a military strike he orders could drag the US into prolonged war. Around the Situation Room table, he has relied principally on his CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine to discuss his options, according to people familiar with the matter. His foreign envoy Steve Witkoff has been corresponding with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to determine if room exists to restart the diplomacy that had been deadlocked before Israel began its campaign last week. Other officials have been publicly sidelined. Twice this week, Trump has dismissed assessments previously offered by his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about the state of Iran's program to develop a nuclear weapon. Gabbard testified in March that the US intelligence community had assessed Iran was not building such a weapon; Trump flatly and publicly disputed that Friday. 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong,' Trump told reporters in New Jersey, asking the reporter who in the intelligence community had said that. Told that it was Gabbard, Trump responded, 'She's wrong.' Yet as he weighs taking action that could have consequences for years to come, Trump appears to be relying mostly on his own instincts, which this week told him to hit pause on ordering a strike that could alter global geopolitics for years to come. When top national security officials told Trump during a meeting at Camp David earlier this month that Israel was prepared to imminently strike inside Iran, it wasn't necessarily a surprise. Trump's advisers had been preparing for months for the possibility Israel could seize upon a moment of Iranian weakness — its regional proxies have been decimated over the past year — to launch a direct assault. Trump's team arrived at Camp David having already drawn up options for potential US involvement. According to people familiar with the matter, his advisers resolved differences between themselves in advance before presenting possible plans to the president. From the mountainside presidential retreat, Trump also spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told the president he intended to begin a campaign in Iran imminently. Ten days later, with the Israeli campaign now in full swing, Trump was meeting in Canada with top American allies from the Group of 7, who hoped to decipher from him what the American plan was going forward. In closed-door meetings, leaders from Europe tried to ascertain whether Trump was inclined to order up a US strike on Fordow, the underground nuclear facility that has been the focus of attention for American war planners, western officials said. They also tried to convince a begrudging Trump to sign on to a joint statement, which urged that 'the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East.' Trump did not reveal his hand, either in private sessions with individual leaders or over dinner at the Kananaskis Country Golf Course, the western officials said. Instead, he left the summit early, leaving his counterparts in the Canadian Rockies and returning to Washington to deal with the matter himself. By midweek, with only vague signs from Iran that it was willing to restart talks, Trump's patience appeared to wearing thin for finding a diplomatic solution. And many of his allies believed he was on the verge of ordering a strike on Iran. 'It's very late, you know?' he said at Wednesday's flagpole event, the heat causing his forehead to glisten. 'It's very late to be talking.' In private meetings that day, Trump appeared convinced of the necessity of taking out the Fordow facility, according to people familiar with the conversations. And he said in public only the United States has the firepower to do it. 'We are the only ones who have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean I am going to do it,' Trump said after coming back inside from his flag raising. 'I have been asked about it by everybody but I haven't made a decision.' He was speaking from the Oval Office, where he'd gathered players from the Italian soccer club Juventus to stand behind him. They mostly acted as a fidgeting backdrop to Trump's question-and-answer session on his Iran decision-making. At one point, Trump turned to the players amid a discussion of the B-2 stealth bomber — the only jet that could carry a bunker-busting bomb to destroy Iran's underground enrichment facility. 'You can be stealthy — you'll never lose, right?' he asked the team members, none of whom responded. 'It was a bit weird. When he started talking about the politics with Iran and everything, it's kind of, like… I just want to play football, man,' one of the players, Timothy Weah, said afterward. Amid the string of events, Trump continued to weigh the choices in front of him, and remained worried about a longer-term war. And he continued to receive messages from all sides of his political coalition, which has been divided over the wisdom of launching a strike that could embroil the US in a war for years to come. He's taken repeated calls from GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a prominent voice in support of striking Iran who described the president as 'very focused, very calm' after a Tuesday night phone call. 'I feel like when he says no nukes for Iran, he means it,' Graham said the next day. 'He gave them a chance for diplomacy. I think they made a miscalculation when it comes to President Trump.' One of the most prominent voices opposing a strike, his onetime top strategist Steve Bannon, was at the White House midday Thursday for a lunch with the president that had been rescheduled from several weeks ago. He revealed nothing of his conversation with Trump on his 'War Room' show later Thursday. But a day earlier, he told a roundtable that getting involved in a drawn-out conflict with Iran would amount to repeating a historic mistake. 'My mantra right now: The Israelis have to finish what they started,' he said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. 'We can't do this again. We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq.' For Trump, the swirl of options, opinions and advice is nothing new. He has faced the Iran decision much as he has most every other major choice of his presidency, by soliciting advice and trying to arrive at a solution that will please the widest swath of his supporters. The answer this time may not be as simple, nor does Trump hold all the cards in a conflict that is playing out across the world. Israel's decision to launch strikes a week ago — while not a surprise to the president — still came against his public entreaties to hold off. And in Iran, he is confronting an adversary with a long history of hardening its positions under pressure from the United States. As he was arriving Friday at his home in New Jersey, Trump said it would be hard to ask Netanyahu to ease up on strikes on Iran in order to pursue diplomacy, given Israel's success in the conflict so far. And he said the two-week window he set a day earlier was the maximum period of time he would allow for diplomacy to work, reserving the option of ordering a strike before that time is up. The president couldn't say whether the decision now in front of him is the biggest he'd face as president. But as he tries to find the balance between ending Iran's nuclear ambitions and keeping the US from war, he did offer an evaluation of what he wanted his legacy to be on the other side. 'Always a peacemaker,' he said. 'That doesn't mean — sometimes, you need some toughness to make peace. But always a peacemaker.'
